Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No kidding! Where on earth is this thinking originating? Oh, wait, silly me! Did those people not study what the basic tenets of a functioning democracy were when they were in school?
I'm tired of all this stuff coming like a never-ending tidal wave.
It does chisel away at the powers of the people on a more microscopic level. On the other hand, a strong Mayor is able to get things done for the city more efficiently.
A good example is the housing crisis. City Council has endlessly catered to the NIMBY's in the city of Toronto not wanting higher density development in many hoods. Ok but that frame of mind is contributing to the higher cost of housing and our housing crisis in general. It also impacts commute times - higher density development makes more sense for good transit development. Endless sprawl not so much. Essentially, the greater good of the people is not being accommodated because of how our municipal democracy is structured. So is this a slipper slope for democracy, or is the democratic system not structured for the greater good.
There are many examples of how our democratic structure isn't necessarily the will of the people either. For example, the party who wins a popular vote may not be the one elected as leader of a Province or of the nation. A lot of votes are simply invalidated in a riding that goes to the person who wins the most votes in that particular riding. Winner takes all instead of proportional representation. So we already have slippery slopes that are accepted.
btw -A strong Mayor is still elected and accountable by the people of the city who elect that Mayor. That Mayor can actually do something with their mandate.
Sutcliffe has said he won't use it.... a lot or people voted for him for his integrity
Well he said he won't use it now while it seems he has support of council. What will happen if he gets frustrated because council shoots down items he wants to get done. Interesting to see which integrity card he'll use then.
It does chisel away at the powers of the people on a more microscopic level. On the other hand, a strong Mayor is able to get things done for the city more efficiently.
A good example is the housing crisis. City Council has endlessly catered to the NIMBY's in the city of Toronto not wanting higher density development in many hoods. Ok but that frame of mind is contributing to the higher cost of housing and our housing crisis in general. It also impacts commute times - higher density development makes more sense for good transit development. Endless sprawl not so much. Essentially, the greater good of the people is not being accommodated because of how our municipal democracy is structured. So is this a slipper slope for democracy, or is the democratic system not structured for the greater good.
There are many examples of how our democratic structure isn't necessarily the will of the people either. For example, the party who wins a popular vote may not be the one elected as leader of a Province or of the nation. A lot of votes are simply invalidated in a riding that goes to the person who wins the most votes in that particular riding. Winner takes all instead of proportional representation. So we already have slippery slopes that are accepted.
btw -A strong Mayor is still elected and accountable by the people of the city who elect that Mayor. That Mayor can actually do something with their mandate.
I'm not a fan of changing processes midstream, just so my side gets what it wants. That is not what the good people of Ottawa voted for. Why have any councillors at all if the people elected will not have their voices heard?
I understand the powers of the provincial government in regards to municipal governments, and this change may be perfectly legal, but morally?
I believe the people should have had a chance to vote on whether they want the right of a majority vote to be dismissed.
As for issues such as housing, as frustrating as it may be for some, the people who live in those neighbourhoods still should have a voice. Isn't that what democracy is about? The fact that I or you may not like it, is not enough for me to start changing the rules and have someone state " for the greater good ". Who decides what the greater good is?
As for our democratic structures, ridings were set up to give a voice to those who live in less populated areas. Going just by majority would disenfranchise them. However any change to these structures will not just happen, there will be a lot of discussion nationally and most like referendums, like we have had here in BC regarding the way we vote.
A mayor can do a lot of damage in a short time, A mayor who only needs a third of councillors to agree with his agenda, could spell disaster.
I'm not a fan of changing processes midstream, just so my side gets what it wants. That is not what the good people of Ottawa voted for. Why have any councillors at all if the people elected will not have their voices heard?
I understand the powers of the provincial government in regards to municipal governments, and this change may be perfectly legal, but morally?
I believe the people should have had a chance to vote on whether they want the right of a majority vote to be dismissed.
As for issues such as housing, as frustrating as it may be for some, the people who live in those neighbourhoods still should have a voice. Isn't that what democracy is about. The fact that I or you may not like it, is not enough for me to start changing the rules and have someone state " for the greater good ". Who decides what the greater good is?
As for our democratic structures, ridings were set up to give a voice to those who live in less populated areas. Going just by majority would disenfranchise them. However any change to these structures will not just happen, there will be a lot of discussion nationally and most like referendums, like we have had here in BC regarding the way we vote.
A mayor can do a lot of damage in a short time, A mayor who only needs a third of councillors to agree with his agenda, could spell disaster.
Well I do agree it shouldn't be done mid stream. Ford uses the blunt instrument approach too often and this should have been put out to the people as an election item, so that they could choose this approach or not.
That all said, the more microscopic you get with representation, the more often in my experience with Municipal affairs anyway is that there simply gridlock with key items. Housing, Transportation, Infrastructure. If you frame that question to 3 million people you'd get more support for initiatives than 3 million people divided up. Its just the way it goes.
So here we are in our cities, 1 million dollars to buy a home within 45 minutes commute of your work. This is not tenable and yes, quite frankly it is all the voices and nimby's always saying no that had a part to play in this. We are the authors of our own misery with the way we structure things.
Ideally, this wouldn't be the case and voices would have the insight, the foresight to look at the big picture Nat but far too often, people are just selfish. I had to move 2.5 hours away from my home city just to be able to find a house I could afford. Someone making almost 100K per year should not have to do this just to be able to afford to buy a house. Heck married couples making 200K per year are struggling to find housing and yes - all those voices who would never take responsibility for it are partially responsible for this mess.
So yes democracy is good but we gotta do better here. We have to give people - elected officials the power to actually get stuff done because our country is hamstrung by all the competing voices.
Besides, we don't have proportional representation in our democracy. Is it sliding because not? The leader who gets the most votes in our country doesn't lead it. Is that sliding or is that ok? Democracies in various forms are still obviously the best government representation but they aren't always perfect, and when we are still in crisis situations year after year after year, it is ok to say what the heck is going on and maybe something should change. We in this country should not have a housing crises. We should not have transit gridlock. We can and should do better.
oh so we don't want to discuss the other areas in our democracy which shut out voices, just with municipal affairs.
Sounds good.
Not at all Some have housework to do!!
We have talked about it. Ridings, and the reason they exist the way they do. To me it sounds reasonable, everyone understands how that works. It actually gives a voice to those in less populated areas.
Depending on the city though, it may or may not work as well. I'm not a fan of Toronto expanding so that too many who don't live in the core having so much control over it. I would fight against Vancouver doing the same. Certain infrastructure would not be built or maintained, if people out in Abbotsford had a say on Downtown Vancouver.
People who want a different way of doing talk about it, and as here in BC have had a referendum on changing how we vote. It didn't pass.
Federally, or provincially and how we vote is not a taboo subject, but at least in my experience it's a subject that is publicly discussed.
What happened in Ottawa is different.
The people didn't have a say. Suddenly the rules changed to help along a certain agenda. One can argue whether the agenda is good or bad, but suddenly changing majority rule in council, without any discussion, warning or input from those affected, then I cry foul.[/quote]
We have talked about it. Ridings, and the reason they exist the way they do. To me it sounds reasonable, everyone understands how that works. It actually gives a voice to those in less populated areas.
Depending on the city though, it may or may not work as well. I'm not a fan of Toronto expanding so that too many who don't live in the core having so much control over it. I would fight against Vancouver doing the same. Certain infrastructure would not be built or maintained, if people out in Abbotsford had a say on Downtown Vancouver.
People who want a different way of doing talk about it, and as here in BC have had a referendum on changing how we vote. It didn't pass.
Federally, or provincially and how we vote is not a taboo subject, but at least in my experience it's a subject that is publicly discussed.
What happened in Ottawa is different.
The people didn't have a say. Suddenly the rules changed to help along a certain agenda. One can argue whether the agenda is good or bad, but suddenly changing majority rule in council, without any discussion, warning or input from those affected, then I cry foul.
[/quote]
No worries I was busy as well lol. Not sure if the changes to municipalities was on the election docket last year but to be honest, I don't think it would have mattered in the end.
I'm not going to go on more about this is as it is an Ottawa thread (I just realized that for some reason thought this was general Canada). I have my own thoughts about Toronto but i'll leave them for now.
thanks for engaging Nat
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some have housework to do!! 
